Sonia Sotomayor’s Second Amendment Problem

President Obama’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, 2nd Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor, owes the American people an explanation on her view of the Second Amendment. Most nominees come before the Senate Judiciary Committee and refuse to answer questions about hot-button issues such as abortion, gay marriage, gun rights and the death penalty. But Sotomayor shouldn’t be allowed to skirt the Second Amendment issue, because she cosigned a decision in a case earlier this year that exhibited a dismissive and hostile view of the right to bear arms. … during the past few months the Senate has voted three times on pro-gun legislation. Each of these legislative amendments passed with overwhelming bipartisan margins. Clearly, the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own and carry a weapon is held by more Senators than the view that the Second Amendment is an empty phrase.

But what about that recent Seventh Circuit opinion holding that the Second Amendment is not incorporated against the states? Heritage fellow Robert Alt distinguishes the two cases:

In light of the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in NRA v. City of Chicago, holding that Supreme Court precedent binds the court to hold that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, it is useful to note a key distinction between that case and Sotomayor’s in Maloney v. Cuomo. Notably, in Maloney, Sotomayor joined an opinion finding that New York’s weapons law did not “interfere[] with a fundamental right.” (She had expressed similar views pre-Heller, when she joined an unpublished opinion stating that “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.”) As such, Sotomayor has the distinction of having voted with the only court of appeals decision to so denigrate Second Amendment rights after Heller. The Ninth Circuit in Nordyke v. King found that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition, and the Seventh Circuit in NRA, applying what Eugene Volokh ably dissects as undue judicial restraint, did not speak to the question.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

Conn writes " … Sotomayor joined an opinion finding that New York’s weapons law did not 'interfere with a fundamental right.”

What??? Again, the 2nd Amendment only recognizes an inherent right, it does not grant it. Any action to infringe upon that right is totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Does that make it any clearer Judge Sotomayor?

I believe the best course of action is for the Senators to sit on their questions and intended methods of inquiry until the last minute. If they are going to consult with or share their repsective methods with anyone else they should do so with extreme caution, in regards to trusting those whom they share with. After all, I wouldn't doubt for a second that Congress would bully a bill through restricting questions or methods if they know in advance that it could cause pressure or rejection possibilities! They would likely name it "The Fairness in Confirmations Act" or something to that effect. It's gotten THAT bad on the HILL in regards to Constitutional LAW! It's also a great time for the NRA to run some ads with Chuck Norris speaking on behalf of U.S. citizens.Yep, Walker:Texas Ranger Who would Obama counter with? Jeff Goldblum as "THE FLY"? Or himself as "Two Face"?

Has anyone else noticed that our government is becoming "Robin Hood" with blatant disrespect for the laws of our country and playing into popular notions of the masses? Robin Hood makes a great hero and Disney movie, but I expect our government to uphold the letter of the law even if it is "unpopular".

Make no mistake. The guys with the guns make all the rules, and the government doesnt want us armed! The whole point of the 2nd amendment is for the people to have the equipment(even fully automatic guns) so that we would be armed and ready for the violent overthrow of the government. Let us hope that it never comes to that.

We need leaders that know what this country stands for. So far it's NOT democrats majority. This is a direct threat to law abiding citizens. What are they doing about criminals????????? Besides reducing their penalties!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THESE PEOPLE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT FREEDOM TO THE PEOPLE IS!!!!!!!!! HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE CONSTITUTION IS!!!!!!! HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO RUN A COUNTRY OF FREEDOM!!!!!

For safety and security of all, along with preservation of freedom, this government has to be removed!!!! Sotomayor isn't the only one. Obama.

I am pretty sure Sotamayor is on record that it is a states right issue. More and more the pendulim is swining back to states rights on many issues. Its a trend that transcends ideology, one we have seen before and one that will in time swing the other way. The problem with public perception on everything is history seems to start around the mid 1960s as a point of reference, and point of refernece doesn't really matter either because its always going to be that was then this is now.

I agree with Tim Schneider. I also believe that Judge Sotamayor can be bullied into this administrations way of doing things. The letter of the law and our Constitution seems meaningless to some of our legislatures and Mr. Obama himself.

By legislatures, I mean on both sides of the aisle. I am frightend at the way this country is going. When are we all start doing what's best for the country and not the party?

"The right to bear arms was written for the protection of democracy, such that the government would fear the populace. An armed society controls and protects its right to assemble, freedom of speech, and most importantly, the power and ability to over throw the government.

In a nation governed by the people themselves, the possession of arms to defend their nation against usurpers within and without was deemed absolutely necessary." Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. ME 5:85, Papers 8:407

I'm a firm supporter of states' rights, but the U.S. Bill-of-Rights recognizes certain fundamental rights that cannot be abridged by anyone including states. Any policies beyond firearm safety awareness are totalitarian. As an American military veteran and proud Texan, I despise such form of governance at any level. Go ahead Demagogues, keep poking the bear with a sharp stick. May they "HOPE" dumb luck continues to be on their side.

Always remember! It is not about guns. It is about control. Substitute the words "Health Care" or any other modern day "Crisis" for the word "Gun" anytime you read about a court opinion on the second ammendment and you'll get a clear picture of where we are headed.

Think about the Supreme Court ruling on Heller and how it failed to emphasize the minimal role of State's rights as they apply to the individual's right to keep and bear arms and you'll see that even a conservative Supreme Court fell short of a clear ruling on the rights of the individual. It's not about guns, it's about control.

JUdge Sotomayor must absolutely be questioned in depth about her legal opinion of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment does not grant Americans the right to keep and bear arms; it prevents the government from taking away those rights. If Judge Sotomayor feels that it is up to the states, or any other lesser unit of government (counties, cities, townships, etc)to individually determine the applicability of the Second Amendment, does she feel the same way about the other Amendments to the Constitution, or the Constitution itself?

" I love my country but I fear my government", may be even more true than ever. It seems that no matter how radical or socialist the idea Obama gets what he wants. The problem is there are too many who also want the cradle to the grave society. They live on welfare, unemployment and food stamps. Sonia Sotamayor is just one more nail in the coffin of our free country. Activisim by juddicial interpretation will leave us powerless to stop the train.Latino woman? White Male? Her agenda is very simple. Right all the wrongs she sees as having been done to people of color.

Mao-Bama will not need to bully Sotomayor to achieve his goals. Sotomayor holds the same hate filled attitudes and beliefs as Mao-Bama. The only exception may be abortion. The Bill Of Rights guarantees nothing. It is simply an acknowledgement that certain rights are granted by God. Meaning no man can have the authority to alter these rights. The armed citizenry holds the responsibility to enforce these rights when their Government attemps to occupy the throne of God. That is how the founding fathers intended this country to maintain its freedom in a country where an ordinary citizen can become an extraordinary citizen. By choice of course.

[…] President Obama’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, 2nd Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor, owes the American people an explanation on her view of the Second Amendment. Most nominees come before the Senate Judiciary Committee and refuse to answer questions about hot-button issues such as abortion, gay marriage, gun rights and the death penalty. But Sotomayor shouldn’t be allowed to skirt the Second Amendment issue, because she cosigned a decision in a case earlier this year that exhibited a dismissive and hostile view of the right to bear arms. … during the past few months the Senate has voted three times on pro-gun legislation. Each of these legislative amendments passed with overwhelming bipartisan margins. Clearly, the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own and carry a weapon is held by more Senators than the view that the Second Amendment is an empty phrase. FULL STORY. […]

It has alway been my view the 2nd amendment was there and stated. "Shall not be infringed upon to protect ourselves from tyrany both foriegn and domestic." Meaning if the people of the United States felt the Goverment was becoming more than a Republic. We would have the means to protect ourselves and restore the Goverment. Just as the President has no right to deploy the Armed services on thier own soil.

[…] its not actually racist. Why does it seem like none you have read about a single case of hers? Sonia Sotomayor’s Second Amendment Problem The Foundry The Hill Blog Blog Archive Judge Sotomayor’s 2nd Amendment Problem (Rep. Paul […]

The 2nd amend being incorpated to the 14th amend is the security to our protection aganist tyranny government. Obama, Soyomayor amd Obama government are out to distroy the constition and bill of rights to sell us out to the UN. He is doing just like Hitler& Leninn did to the people into slavery. We need to protect the future of our children so this doesn't happen. Families is america. Slavery isn't for our children. We need to stop tyranny, treason of our government.

Strictly speaking, if the 2cnd amendment means what it says, then an individual's possession of firearms should be none of the government's business. I've always held that being armed is one's basic right, but that one shouldn't be too ostentatious about it. Keeping one's opponent guessing is more deterrent than permitting him a precise assessment of his advantage. Wouldn't that equally apply to arms-registration ?

I believe that we Americans have lost enough of our freedoms. I value my 2and Amendment rights and will not tolorate someone trying to remove them. Perhaps these folks from OBama's gift list should read about what they are going to try to take away.

I see our country in enough trouble without loosing the 2and amendment to the Constitution.

I would like to know specifically where the Judge stands on the individual American's Constitutional rights to keep and bear arms. I personally believe this is an attempt to weaken the Nation's Constitutional rights, and to do so by attempting to appoint her to the highest court in the land with full knowledge that she will vote against our right to keep and bear arms; and, that frightens me.

I fear the day when our Supreme Court makes it's rulings not based on their interpretation of the intention of our ancestors, but upon their own beliefs. Yes, it is idealistic to expect judges to judge according to the law and not according to their personal beliefs. But that is exactly what it means to be a judge – to make your decisions outside of and separate from personal beliefs – to protect and preserve our constitution and our laws. Otherwise, where are we? I don't know where we'll be, but we will no longer be in America, Land of the Free. Sonia Sotomayor as a Supreme Court Judge threatens everything this great country was built on, including the privilege of free speech on a blog! If we allow them to once change a basic concept of our constitution, where will it end? Back where our ancestors started? back to oppression? to the kind of life they came to America to escape? to a life where all of our freedoms are slowly but surely leached away from us? God protect us one and all.

she does not belong on the supreme court if she thinks it is not an individual's right to own a gun hand gun or rifle! but she will no doubt be voted on the supreme court because she is a Latina. racial politics at its best! me i would love to see a Latina who understands the whole point behind our constitution or an Asian, an African, or any other person of color who has a basic understanding of what the founding fathers meant about our basic laws. and make no mistake she will legislate from the bench! buy as many guns and ammo as you can folks because when and if Obama gets a second term as president he will go after guns right like Grant took Richmond in the civil war! excuse me THE WAR BETWEEN THE STATES! Tommy Fuller gun owner and patriot!

Sonia Sotomayer, is an activest, masquerading as a supreme court judge. She will do whatever the hell she wants. She cannot say it but she does not give a flip about the constitution. She will not preserve, protect and defend the constitution she will just say she will. We now have three women crackpots on board. This Latina woman is a fraud. Wait and see the damage she does to the second amendment

Don’t have time to read the Washington Post or New York Times? Then get The Morning Bell, an early morning edition of the day’s most important political news, conservative commentary and original reporting from a team committed to following the truth no matter where it leads.

Email address

Ever feel like the only difference between the New York Times and Washington Post is the name? We do. Try the Morning Bell and get the day’s most important news and commentary from a team committed to the truth in formats that respect your time…and your intelligence.